I’m very excited by the prospect of Meteor splitting up and forming individual communities around different libraries. Now, comes the question of how we want to organize this.
First, titles: working on core Meteor projects is respectable, and thus, it should come with a title. That way, people can identify their work on LinkedIn, resumes, etc. Perhaps we should have a “Meteor Community Developer” title alongside “Meteor Core Developer”?
Second, managers: Meteor was designed by opinionated individuals, and was not intended to reflect the popular opinion. My worry with the open style of development is that it will shift towards the latter, risking complicated feature and bloat. Additionally, managing these projects for MDG might be hard. Perhaps Meteor should designate Project Managers for each library, and then that PM would manage and guide developers along the way?
Finally, incentives: Meteor is a commercial company, and as always, I believe there needs to be a reciprocal relationalship. As the community helps grow Meteor’s market, and assists Meteor customers, what should they expect to receive in return for their commitement?
The post was encouraged from someone at MDG, and I think it’s a interesting question, as we have an open source project with commercial interests. It would be great to hear what you think.